[tomtom]

Probably an article from Jens based on 8a.crack statistics taking no account of how many people there are at each height etc etc. I'm sceptical that there's an 'optimum' height in general, though obviously there may/will be for specific routes.

Yeah - if you have a good ape index you get the best of both worlds.. reach but no bunch problems..

[Sasquatch]

Do you believe in natural talent? Obviously we can see Sharma went from novice to 8c+ in three years and there are many a story like this - but was he "born gifted"?

Yes, I believe in natural talent.

Yes and no.  I think Sharma ticked many boxes that positioned him to excel.  He grew up surfing and skateboarding and his parents were pretty liberal.  His mindset was very playful and experimental, plus he likely had developed a good kinaesthetic awareness from surfing and skateboarding.   This set the stage for him when he started climbing to be relatively fearless and willing to try anything.  He didn't let anyone tell him what he could/couldn't do.  He quickly connected with Tommy Caldwell, who came from a completely different background, but with equal potential.  I really think they two of them spending those early years climbing together really allowed both of them to develop the opposite parts and Chris learned the rest of the "non-natural" skills that allowed him to reach the highest levels. 

So are these top class climbers one-off natural freaks?  I don't think so.  I think alot of it boils down to right time, right place, right person. 

As other have mentioned, the right balance of a natural proclivity plus an environment that rewards hard work and you get phenomonal results. 

[Sasquatch]

Oh yeah, Don't underestimate the difference the pool of talent makes.  Being surrounded by other strong climbers makes a HUGE difference.  I think this is why you see these hotspots of talent develop from time to time.  Think Yosemite in the 70's, Sheffield in the Late 80-early 90's, Salt Lake City in the mid 90's, the Hueco group in the early to mid 90's, the Swiss/Austrian powerhouses of the late 90's, the Spanish enduro monsters of the early 2000's, etc. 

Being the biggest fish a really small pond (I'd be a minnow in a real pond ) has really helped me understand the difference it makes to be surrounded by that type of talent/competition/knowledge/etc. 

[Muenchener]

as much as Andy Kirkpatrick is king punter he has a real talent for suffering

I have a sneaking urge to email Andy and ask him, since he's Hull's Second Best Climber, whether it's Joe Tasker or John Redhead he's better than 

[Wood FT]

as much as Andy Kirkpatrick is king punter he has a real talent for suffering

I have a sneaking urge to email Andy and ask him, since he's Hull's Second Best Climber, whether it's Joe Tasker or John Redhead he's better than 

I think he probably didn't realise redhead was a Hullian, he deffo must've known about tasker as they have his picture up in the covered market hall of fame (along with that chap from the fine young cannibals and the beautiful south)

[SEDur]

Most important natural talent is the predisposition to be utterly dedicated and work extremely hard towards improving. HTH.

I would tend to believe that there is a mental predisposition which fits climbing perfectly, and this may be put down within the 'natural talent' idea. The Steve Mcclure 'grim determination' 'ability to hold on and keep going' thing, or Paxti's ability to train himself into oblivion.
Good genetics is (almost) a scientific fact, and I suppose that it fits the obvious elements of natural physical talent.
However, I have never met a top level performer (musical, sport etc) who didn't put 100% of their effort in physically and mentally over years of hard work.

Remembering that we are basically designed to climb, and that I cannot think of a single faculty of human physiology/base level psychology (obv referring to the obvious parts) that isn't involved in climbing in some way shape or form.

So I agree, that there is natural talent in these forms; physical (i.e. good genetics) and mental (i.e. that grim determination to push yourself through any barrier and work 100% of your ability and energy towards whatever you focus on).
This 'natural talent' is effectively the ability to apply yourself to reach goals effectively.

I wouldn't ever say that Joe Blogs could be born to climb 9b+ with little adaptation, in that form of 'natural talent'.

[finbarrr]

I wouldn't ever say that Joe Blogs could be born to climb 9b+ with little adaptation, in that form of 'natural talent'.

Not knowing Joe Blogs, i would like to state it a little differently;
if, 16 years ago, you took 1000 children who were crazy about climbing, and one of them was Adam Ondra, and you had them all climb the same hours and "training-intensity" as Adam Ondra, would they all be climbing 9b+ and bouldering 8C+?
would 100? or just 2 ? or just 1?
i'd hope there would be at least two or three.
but i'm not at all sure.
is it then "talent" that set Adam Ondra apart from the rest of the field?
is that the definition of talent: that which makes you better than the rest WITH the same training?
i know that the drive to train (or at least to climb as hard as possible as often as possible, in the case of the young Sharma and Ondra) is essential for progression, but i find it hard calling that a talent.
it is a talent, but not a specific one, the talent to train hard can make most people a better cyclist than a good climber.

[Stubbs]

Remembering that we are basically designed to climb, and that I cannot think of a single faculty of human physiology/base level psychology (obv referring to the obvious parts) that isn't involved in climbing in some way shape or form.

Could you expand on this? If we were designed to climb I think we would still look more like gibbons!

[Oldmanmatt]

I'm gradually coming to think it might be more mental than physical.
Watching the good, next to the exceptional; I think I see a focus in the best that is absent from the good.
They are all competitive, but the best seem quietly so. Not ribbing their fellows, but sometimes clearly angry with themselves.
The variety of body morphology within that group, though, suggests to me that it is less important than mental attitude.

[tomtom]

Remembering that we are basically designed to climb, and that I cannot think of a single faculty of human physiology/base level psychology (obv referring to the obvious parts) that isn't involved in climbing in some way shape or form.

Could you expand on this? If we were designed to climb I think we would still look more like Willackers!

(one small edit)

[SEDur]

Remembering that we are basically designed to climb, and that I cannot think of a single faculty of human physiology/base level psychology (obv referring to the obvious parts) that isn't involved in climbing in some way shape or form.

Could you expand on this? If we were designed to climb I think we would still look more like gibbons!

Things like the way we recruit power in our muscles when we hold and pull on something.
How our legs work (or the entire skeleton for that matter); or if we evolved only to walk and run, why do we have such a range and stretch (relative flexability considered).
Having opposable thumbs to grasp tree branches and other objects, for whatever purpose; but they suit climbing very well. Even toes seem like quite a good idea in climbing, if we hadn't spent so much time walking around would they be more like fingers?

The way the central nervous system behaves and responds to holds and movement, seems to fit the bodies requirements when climbing quite well.

Call it romanticised dross; but when I climb or watch others climb, everything seems to work pretty well for it. 

We may not be graced with the greatest ape index (with the exception of Willackers, Napier et al) of climbing-centric animals, but we do pretty well at it. We aren't all that dissimilar to gibbons, sloth, apes etc.

[Robsons]

Thanks for all the responses so far...almost a never ending debate, hence why it is so interesting. I think there is truth in every aspect. Genetically, I will be seeing what the pros' generations were doing in the past. There could be a similarity making sense of their finger strength? The obvious look at Sharma and Ondra highlights the differences in body type, and when you throw in Ramon Julian (5"2), there is no clear cut answer, making the 10,000 hour argument stronger.
Perhaps as climbing is a fairly young sport (when science is concerned) we, as a race, have not reached OUR potential, meaning that it doesn't take 10,000 hours to be at the top of the sport YET? Perhaps when our sport is more evolved this will be true?
I am looking forward to compiling all of the answers and writing about it. I shall link it up once done.
Does anyone here think they have put in 10,000 worthwhile hours into climbing?

[cheers big ears]

Surely there are just too many variables for this to be solved.  For instance I understand the 10,000 hours argument, and its got the stats to back it up.  But all that says is the people at or near the top have done loads of practice.  Not really a ground breaking study.

More important (and covered in that 'Bounce' book) is the quality of that practise.  Always do what you've always done etc....

And the environment you train in I believe is at least as important.  I remember being a pretty handy badminton player at primary school, until our team was added to by a guy from thailand who could hit shots i'd previously thought impossible.  Within about 3 months hes presence alone had raised the level of everyone by an order of magnitude.  If we never had that exsposure to the elite performer we'd have happily gone no where and never even had an understanding what was possible - and similarly how easy it was to get there! 

Everyone whos joined a club or started competing will have seen the rapid improvement it brings.  Just by moving the goalposts.  If you imagine in rock climbing everyone starting from the same level (or near enough) and one person goes to the wall twice a week on his own and just measures himself on the grades on the wall. And compare him to someone who goes twice a week, joins a club, gets a coach and measures himself against the best comparable climber, while exsposing himself to the techniques and traits of much better climbers.  The gets a companion of similar dedication and aspirations who move together through the grades, and through the available knowledge from their friends of ever ascending climbing ability.  Ones Chris Sharma, the other is any number of 'talentless punters across the UK - like me)

For me its neither nature or nurture but a combination of such a wide range of factors you really need (but in my view can make) the stars align.

[tomtom]

10 000 hours works out at three 2 hour sessions a week, over 33 years

I should be elite by the time I'm 50-55 :D

[r-man]

Does anyone here think they have put in 10,000 worthwhile hours into climbing?

Have you read the link posted earlier, which criticises the 10,000 hours theory?
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/08/talent-training-and-performance-secrets.html

Here are some interesting quotes:

Malcolm Gladwell...[made] this statement in his book "Outliers":   

“The striking thing about Ericsson’s study is that he and his colleagues couldn’t find any “naturals”, musicians who floated effortlessly to the top while practicing a fraction of the time their peers did.

    Nor could they find any “grinds”, people who worked harder than everyone else, yet just didn’t have what it takes to break the top ranks.” – Outliers, pg 39

Again, I don't know how he arrives at the above statements - Ericsson presented not a single measure to support these claims (and I happen to know that he didn't interview him either).

and

Sports examples: Very rarely do elite athletes need 10,000 hours

and

Greatness is recognizable early, long before 10,000 hours are accumulated: Michael Phelps and Missy Franklin

[Robsons]

I did read it, but where Matthew Syed and Bounce look at a few people at the TOP of their game...IME. the world's best, this looks at "international wrestlers/footballers" etc, not THE best. There are hundreds of top footballers, the worst in the pack is a complete spectrum away from the TOP. 

[r-man]

Michael Phelps and Missy Franklin? It doesn't get much more elite!

[Robsons]

True

[krymson]

If you guys want to take it one step further there's epigenetics.

genetics is the study of our dna and genes whereas Epigenetics is more about the study of how our genes express, and in fact this expression can actually change base on our environment and experiences.

What does gene expression mean? My basic understanding is that while our DNA is our master program, not every line of "code" is actually run. Some genes are turned off and some are turned on, and this expression, even moreso than the original DNA,  is ultimately what makes us who we are. things like your hair, your face, your physical makeup, your propensity for athletics or for disease, even your personality are affected.

However this expression, that makes us "who we are", isn't static -- for instance something like smoking will change it, mostly for the negative, whereas exercise would also change it, mostly for the positive.

So that confuses the nature vs nurture debate a bit more because who we are, things that you think are fundamental to who you are, are not as fixed as you think, but can change depending on your experiences and environment. Your environment and experiences can literally interact with your dna to make you different from someone with the same exact dna in a different environment, and they've found this is the case in genetically identical twins.

This is theorizing a bit but it's possible for instance, that climbing early in life can trigger developments which predispose someone physically to grow up to be a better climber. Epigenetic changes also can be inherited, so if two climbers have a child, that child can be predisposed to be a good climber simply because of the experience of his parents, even if their dna is not originally particularly suited to climbing.

[IanP]

I did read it, but where Matthew Syed and Bounce look at a few people at the TOP of their game...IME. the world's best, this looks at "international wrestlers/footballers" etc, not THE best. There are hundreds of top footballers, the worst in the pack is a complete spectrum away from the TOP.

High level football is one of the best paid and most competive sports there is with the major leagues fed by the best players from all over the world.  Is it Matthew Syed's argument that the only thing that random young Johnny Football Mad kid needs to join this elite is lots of quality practice?

[Danny]

Great topic!

I think we could possibly split 'talent' into two broad categories:

1. Physiological and mental predispositions - i.e. body shape, insert positions, joint mobility etc. I think mental predispositions could be just as significant, since they will also link directly to physical performance (e.g. adrenal regulation) but also more indirectly - I suspect psychopaths could make great climbers, in all seriousness.

2. Phenotypic plasticity (well, something like it) - here, the ability to change some of the characteristics in 1. as the nature of your environment changes. For simplicity, it could be best to include both a willingness to work and also the natural tendency of the body and mind to respond to this work.

Some things in 1., like inserts and ape index will never change, regardless of latent 'talent' in 2., but some things will.

Dave Macleod strikes me as someone who isn't overly gifted in 1. (by his own admission he holds onto fat, has sweaty skin and gets injured quite a bit). But he clearly has bags of talent in 2. I think this is even reflected in his climbing style - a meticulously learned sort of movement.

In contrast, Ondra clearly has bags of both.

Not surprisingly, I can't think of many top climbers who are entirely the opposite, but there are surely plenty of pretty capable ones ticking all the boxes in 1. but who never achieve everything they are 'capable' of. 








 

 

[Oldmanmatt]

There also arises the question of whether or not climbing/exercise during childhood/adolescence affects the body morphology?

Can you, in fact, change your ape index?

(Or at least, that of a developing child).
 

[Danny]

Interesting discussion with Malcolm Gladwell (the author mentioned on the sports science page linked on this thread):

http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab-blog/2010/jul/26/secrets-of-success/

[Danny]

There also arises the question of whether or not climbing/exercise during childhood/adolescence affects the body morphology?

Can you, in fact, change your ape index?

(Or at least, that of a developing child).

I doubt it, though I have no evidence-based reason to.

[tomtom]

Psychopaths are an interesting observation... the ability to detach themselves from emotions and feelings is probably useful for hard/dangerous trad. Quite a bit of research on war heroes being psychopaths etc...